Tool with tool body and protective layer system

ABSTRACT

There is proposed a tool with a tool body and a wear resistant layer system, which layer system comprises at least one layer of MeX. Me comprises titanium and aluminum and X is nitrogen or S carbon. The tool has a tool body of high speed steel (HSS) or of cemented carbide, but it is not a solid carbide end mill and not a solid carbide ball nose mill. in the MeX layer the quotient Q I  as defined by the ratio of the diffraction intensity I(200) to 1(111) assigned respectively to the (200) and (111) plains in the X ray cdffraction of the material using θ-2θ method is selected to be ≧1. Further, the I(200) is at least twenty times larger than the intensity average noise value, both measured with a well-defined equipment and setting thereof.

[0001] The present invention is directed on a tool with a tool body anda wear resistt layer eyetemu, wherein the layer system comprises atleast one layer of MeX, wherein

[0002] Me comprises titanium and aluminum,

[0003] X is at least one of nitrogen and of carbon.

DEFINITION

[0004] The term Q_(I) is def ined as the ratio of the diffractionintensities I(200) to I(111), assigned respectively to the (200) and(111) plains in the X ray diffraction of a material using the θ-2θmethod. Thus, there is valid Q_(I)=I(200)/I(111). The intensity valueswere measured with the following equipment and with the followingsettings; Siemens Diffractometer D500 Power: Operating voltage: 30 kVOperating current: 25 mA Aperture Diaphragms: Diaphragm position I: 1°Diaphragm position II: 0.1° Detector Diaphragms: Soller slit Timeconstant: 4 s 29 angular speed: 0.05°/min Radiation: Cu-Kα(0.15406 nm)

[0005] When we refer to “measured according to MS” we refer to thisequipment and to these settings. Thereby, all quantitative results forQ_(I) and I throughout tats awplication hive been measured by MS.

[0006] We understand by “tool body” the uncoated tool.

[0007] We understand under “hard material” a material with which toolswhich are mechanically and thermally highly loaded in operation arecoated for wear reaistance. Preferred examples of such materials arereferred to below as MeX materials.

[0008] It is well-known in the tool-protecting art to provide wearredistant layer systems which comprise at least one layer of a hardmaterial, as defined by MeX.

[0009] The present invention has the object of significantly improvingthe lifetime of such tools. This is resolved by selecting for said atleast one layer a Q_(I) value, for which there is valid

Q_(I)≧1

[0010] and wherein the tool body is made of high speed steel (HSS) or ofcemented carbide, whereby said tool is not a solid carbide end mill or asolid carbide ball nose mill. Further, the value of I(200) is higher bya factor of at least 20 than the intensity noise average level asmeasured according to MS.

[0011] According to the present invention it has been recognised thatthe Q, values as specified lead to an astonishingly high improvement ofwear resistance, and thus of lifetime of a tool, if such a tool is ofthe kind as specified.

[0012] Up to now, application of a wear resistant layer systems of MeXhard material was done irrespective of interaction between tool bodymaterial and the mechanical and thermal load the tool is subjected to inoperation. The present invention thus resides on the fact that it hasbeen recognised that an astonishing improvement of wear resistance isrealised when selectively combining the specified Q_(I) value with thespecified kind of tools, thereby realising a value of I(200) higher by afactor of at least 20 than the average noise intensity level, bothmeasured with MS.

[0013] With respect to inventively coating cemented carbide tool bodies,it has further been recognised that a significant improvement inlifetime is reached if such cemented carbide tools are inserts, drillsor gear cutting tools, as e.g. hobs or shaper cutters, whereby theimprovement is especially pronounced for such inserts or drills.

[0014] The inventively reached improvement is even increased if Q_(I) isselected to be at least 2, and an even further improvement is realisedby selecting Q_(I) to be at least 5. The largest improvements arereached if Q_(I) is at least 10. It must be stated that Q_(I) mayincrease towards infinite, if the layer material is realised with aunique crystal orientation according to a diffraction intensity I(200)at a vanishing diffraction intensity I(111). Therefore, there is not setany upper limit for Q_(I) which is only set by practicability.

[0015] As is known to the skilled artisan, there exists a correlationbetween hardness of a layer and stress therein. The higher the stress,the higher the hardness.

[0016] Nevertheless, with rising stress, the adhesion to the tool bodytends to diminish. For the tool according to the present invention, ahigh adhesion is rather more important than the highest possiblehardness. Therefore, the stress in the MeX layer is advantageouslyselected rather at the lower end of the stress range given below.

[0017] These considerations limit in practice the Q_(I) valueexploitable.

[0018] In a preferred embodiment of the inventive tool, the MeX materialof the tool is titanium aluminum nitride, titanium aluminumacarbonitride or titanium aluminum boron nitride, whereby the twomaterials first mentioned are today preferred over titanium aluminumboron nitride.

[0019] In a further fortm of realisation of the inventive tool, Me ofthe layer material MeX may additionally comprise at least one of theelemients boron, zirconium, hafnium, yttrium, silicon, tungsten,chromium, whereby, out of this group, it is preferred to use yttriumand/or silicon and/or boron. Such additional element to titanium andaluminum is introduced in the layer material, preferably with a contenti, for which there is valid

0.05at.%≦i≦60at.%,

[0020] taken Me as 100 at.%.

[0021] A still further improvement in all different embodiments of theat least one MeX layer is reached by introducing an additional layer oftitanium nitride between the MeX layer and the tool body with athickness d, for which there is valid

0.05 μm≦d≦5 μm.

[0022] In view of the general object of the present invention, which isto propose the inventive tool to be manufacturable at lowest possiblecosts and thus most economically, there is further proposed that thetool has only one MeX material layer and the additional layer which isdeposited between the MeX layer and the tool body.

[0023] Further, the stress δ in the MeX is preferably selected to be

[0024] 1 GPa≦δ≦4 GPa, thereby most preferably within the range

[0025] 1.5 GPa≦δ≦2.5 GPa.

[0026] The content x of titanium in the Me component of the MeX layer ispreferably selected to be

[0027] 70 at % ≦x≦40 at %, thereby in a further preferred emnbodimentwithin the range

[0028] 65 ≦x≦55 at %.

[0029] On the other hand, the content y of aluminum in the Me componentof the MeX material is preferably selected to be

[0030] 30 at % ≦y≦60 at %, in a further preferred embodiment even to be

[0031] 35 at % ≦y≦45 at %.

[0032] In a still further preferred embodiment, both these ranges, i.e.with respect to titanium and with respect to aluminum are fulfilled.

[0033] The deposition, especially of the MeX layer, may be done by anyknown vacuum deposition technique, especially by a reactive PVD coatingtechnique, as e.g. reactive cathodic arc evaporation or reactivesputtering. By appropriately controlling the process parameters, whichinfluence the growth of the coating, the inventively exploited Q_(I)range is realised.

[0034] To achieve excellent and reproducible adhesion of the layers tothe tool body a plasma etching technology was used, as a preparatorystep, based on an Argon plasma as described in Appendix A, whichdocument is integrated to this description by reference, with respect tosuch etching and subsequent coating. This document accords with the U.S.application Ser. No. 08/710 095 of the same inventor (two inventors!)and applicant as the present application.

EXAMPLES 1

[0035] An arc ion plating apparatus using magnetically controlled arcsources as described in Appendix A was used operated as shown in table 1to deposit the MeX layer as also stated in table 1 on cemented carbideinserts. The thickness of the Mex layer deposited was always 5 μm.Thereby, in the samples Nr. 1 to 7, the inventively stated Q_(I) valueswhere realised, whereas, for comparison in the samples number 8 to 12this condition was not fulfilled. The I(200) value was alwayssignificantly larger than 20 times the noise average value, measuredaccording to MS. The coated inserts were used for milling under thefollowing conditions to find the milling distance attainable up todelamination. The resulting milling distance according to the lifetimeof such tools is also shown in table 1.

[0036] Test cutting conditions: Material being cut: SKD 61 (HRC45)Cutting speed: 100 m/min Feed speed: 0.1 m/edge Depth of cut: 2 mm

[0037] The shape of the inserts coated and tested was in accordance withSEE 42 TN (G9).

[0038] It is clearly recognisable from table 1 that the inserts, coatedaccording to the present invention, are significantly more protectedagainst delamination than the inserts coated according to the comparisonconditions.

[0039] Further, the result of sample 7 clearly shows that here thestress and thus hardness of the layer was reduced, leading to lowercutting distance than would be expected for a high Q_(I) of 22.5, stillfulfilling the stress-requirements as defined above. TABLE 1 AttainableCutting Dis- Coating Conditions tance (m) Bias Arc Q_(f) = (distanceVoltage N₂ pressure Current I(200)/ Residual till delami- Sample No.(−V) (mbar) (A) Layer x y I(111) Stress GPa nation) Remarks PresentInvention 1 60 2.0 × 10⁻⁵ 150 (Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.5 0.5 1.5 5.2 2.2 m (2.1m) 2 60 8.0 × 10⁻² 150 (Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.5 0.5 6.7 4.8 2.8 m (2.5 m) 340 2.0 × 10⁻² 150 (Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.5 0.5 8.1 4.2 8.8 m (8.5 m) facelapping 4 40 3.0 × 10⁻² 150 (Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.4 0.6 10.2 3.9 3.9 m (3.5m) 5 40 0.5 × 10⁻² 150 (Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.5 0.5 6.0 5.8 2.0 m (1.7 m) 630 2.0 × 10⁻² 150 (Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.5 0.5 15.4 2.5 4.2 m (4.0 m) 7 202.0 × 10⁻² 150 (Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.5 0.5 22.5 1.2 3.3 m (3.3 m) Comparison8 60 0.5 × 10⁻² 150 (Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.5 0.5 0.8 6.1 1.0 m (0.8 m) 9 1002.0 × 10⁻² 150 (Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.5 0.5 0.7 5.5 0.9 m (0.9 m) 10 100 3.0× 10⁻² 150 (Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.5 0.5 0.9 4.8 0.8 m (0.7 m) 11 150 2.0 ×10⁻² 150 (Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.5 0.5 0.2 7.2 0.1 m (0.1 m) 12 100 0.5 × 10⁻²150 (Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.4 0.6 0.1 6.8 0.2 m (0.1 m)

EXAMPLES 2

[0040] The apparatus as used for coating according to Example 1 was alsoused for coating the samples Mr. 13 to 22 of table 2. The thickness ofthe overall coating was again 5 μm. It may be seen that in addition tothe coating according to Example 1 there was applied an interlayer oftitanium nitride between the MeX layer and the tool body and anoutermost layer of the respective material as stated in table 2. Thecondition with respect to I(200) and average noise level, measuredaccording to MS was largely fulfilled.

[0041] It may be noted that provision of the interlayer between the Mexlayer and the tool body already resulted in a further improvement. Anadditional improvement was realised by providing an outermost layer ofone of the materials titanium carbomitride, titanium aluminum oxinitrideand especially with an outermost layer of aluminum oxide. Again, it maybe seen that by realising the inventively stated Q_(I) values withrespect to the comparison samples number 19 to 22, a significantimprovement is realised.

[0042] The outermost layer of aluminum oxide of 0.5 μm thickness, wasformed by plasma CVD,

[0043] The coated inserts of cemented carbide were tested under the samecutting conditions as those of Example 1, Q_(I) was measured accordingto MS. TABLE 2 Inter- Q₁ = Attainable Cutting layer Outermost I(200)/Distance (m) (distance Sample No. (μm) TiAl Layer x y Layer I(111) tilldelamination) Present Invention 13 TiN (Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.5 0.5 — 1.5 4.5m (4.2) (0.4 μm) (4.6 μm) 14 TiN (Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.5 0.5 TiCN 7.2 7.8(7.6 m) (0.4 μm) (4.1 μm) (0.5 μm) 15 TiN (Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.5 0.5 TiCN6.8 6.2 m (5.5 m) (0.4 μm) (4.4 μm) (0.5 μm) 16 TiCN (Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.50.5 (TiAl)NO 5.2 6.2 m (6.0 m) (0.4 μm) (4.1 μm) (0.5 μm) 17 TiN(Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.5 0.5 Al₂O₃ 12.5 10.1 m (9.8 m) (0.4 μm) (4.1 μm) (0.5μm) 18 TiN (Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.5 0.5 Al₂O₃ 7.0 9.8 m (9.5 m) (0.4 μm) (4.1μm) (0.5 μm) Comparison 19 TiN (Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.5 0.5 — 0.8 1.5 m (1.2m) 20 TiN (Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.5 0.5 TiCN 0.8 1.9 m (1.5 m) 21 TiN(Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.5 0.5 TiCN 0.7 1.8 m (1.5 m) 22 TiN (Ti_(x)Al_(y))N0.5 0.5 (TiAl)NO 0.1 0.6 m (0.4 m)

EXAMPLE 3

[0044] Again, cemented carbide inserts were coated with the apparatus ofExample 1 with the MeX layer as stated in table 3, still fulfilling theQ_(I) conditions as inventively stated and, by far, the condition ofI(200) with respect to average noise level, measured according to MS.Thereby, there was introduced one of zirconium, hafnium, yttrium,silicon and chromium, with the amount as stated above, into Me.

[0045] The coated inserts were kept in an air oven at 750° C. for 30min. for oxidation. Thereafter, the resulting thickness of the oxidelayer was measured. These results are also shown in table 3. Forcomparison, inserts coated inventively with different Me compounds ofthe MeX material were equally tested. It becomes evident that by addingany of the elements according to samples 23 to 32 to Me, the thicknessof the resulting oxide film is significantly reduced. With respect tooxidation the best results were realised by adding siicon or yttrium.

[0046] It must be pointed out, that it is known to the skilled artisan,that for the MeX material wear resistant layers there is valid: Thebetter the oxidation resistance and thus the thinner the resulting oxidefilm, the better the cutting performance. TABLE 3 Thick- ness of OxideFilm Sample No. Layer Composition w x y z (μm) Present Invention 23(Ti_(x)Al_(y)Y_(z))N 0.48 0.5 0.02 0.7 24 (Ti_(x)Al_(y)Cr_(z))N 0.48 0.50.02 0.9 25 (Ti_(x)Al_(y)Zr_(z))N 0.49 0.5 0.02 0.7 26(Ti_(x)Al_(y)Y_(z))N 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.1 27 (Ti_(x)Al_(y)Zr_(z))N 0.25 0.50.25 0.5 28 (Ti_(x)Al_(y)W_(z))N 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.8 29(Ti_(x)Al_(y)Si_(z))N 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.1 30 (Ti_(x)Al_(y)Si_(z))N 0.48 0.50.02 0.2 31 (Ti_(x)Al_(y)Hf_(z))N 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.9 32(Ti_(x)Al_(y)Y_(z)Si_(w))N 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.05 Comparison 33(Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.4 0.6 1.8 34 (Ti_(x)Al_(y)Nb_(z))N 0.4 0.5 0.3 2.5 35(Ti_(x)Al_(y)Ta_(z))N 0.4 0.5 0.1 3.3

EXAMPLE 4

[0047] An apparatus and a coating method as used for the samples ofExample 1 was again used.

[0048] HSS drills with a diameter of 6 mm were coated with a 4.5 μm MeXand a TiN interlayer was provided between the MeX layer and the toolbody, with a thickness of 0.1 μm. The test condition were: Tool: HSStwist drill, dia. 6 mm Material: DIN 1.2080 (AISI D3) Cuttingparameters: v_(c) = 35 m/min f = 0.12 mm/rev. 15 mm deep blind holeswith coolant.

[0049] TABLE 4 Bias N₂- Arc Number of Voltage Pressure current Inter-Residual drilled (−V) (mbar) (A) layer layer x y z Q₁ Stress (GPa) holesPresent Invention 36 40 3.0 × 10⁻² 200 TiN (Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.6 0.4 5.42.1 210 0.1 μm 37 40 3.0 × 10⁻² 200 TiN (Ti_(x)Al_(y)B_(z))N 0.58 0.40.02 3.8 2.3 190 0.1 μm Comparison 38 150 1.0 × 10⁻² 200 TiN(Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.6 0.4 0.03 4.5 30 0.1 μm 39 150 1.0 × 10⁻² 200 TiN(Ti_(x)Al_(y)B_(z))N 0.58 0.4 0.02 0.1 4.8 38 0.1 μm

[0050] The lifetime of the tool was determined by the number of holeswhich could be drilled before failure of the drill.

[0051] The results of the inventively coated drills are shown as samplesNo. 36 and 37 in Table 4, the samples No. 38 and 39 again showcomparison samples. Again, I(200) exceeded 20 times intensity averagenoise level by far, for samples 36, 37, as measured by MS.

[0052] Again, the apparatus and method as mentioned for Example 1 wasused for coating HSS roughing mills with a diameter of 12 mm with a 4.5μm MeX layer. There was provided a titanium nitride interlayer with athickness of 0.1 μm between the MeX layer and the tool body. The testconditions were: Tool: HSS roughing mill, dia. 12 mm z = 4 Material:AISI H13 (DIN 1.2344) 640 N/mm² Cutting parameters: v_(c) = 47.8 m/minf_(t) = 0.07 mm a_(p) = 18 mm a_(e) = 6 mm climb milling, dry.

[0053] The HSS rouging mill was used until an average width of flankwear of 0.2 mm was obtained.

[0054] Sample No. 40 in Table No. 5 shows the results of the inventivelycoated tool, sample 41 is again for comparison. Again, I(200) of sampleNr. 40 fulfilled the condition with respect to noise, as measured by MS.TABLE 5 Bias N₂- Arc Cutting Voltage Pressure current inter- Residualdistance (−V) (mbar) (A) layer layer x y Q₁ Stress (GPa) (m) Present 403.0 × 10⁻² 200 TiN (Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.6 0.4 5.4 2.1 35 m invention 0.1 μm40 Comparison 150 1.0 × 10⁻² 200 TiN (Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.6 0.4 0.03 4.5 11m 41 0.1 μm (chipping and peel- ing off)

EXAMPLE 6

[0055] Again, the apparatus and coating method according to Examle 1 wasused. Solid carbide end mills with a diameter of 10 mm with 6 teeth werecoated with a 3.0 μm MeX layer. There was provided a titanium nitrideinterlayer with a thickless of 0.08 μm between the MeX and the toolbody. Test conditions for the end mills were: Tool: Solid carbide endmill, dia. 10 mm z = 6 Material: AISI D2 (DIN 1.2379) 60 HRC Cuttingparameters: v_(c) = 20 m/min f_(t) = 0.031 mm a_(p) = 15 mm a_(e) = 1 mmClimb milling, dry

[0056] The solid carbide end mills were used until an average width offlank wear of 0.20 mm was obtained. It is to be noted that solid carbideend mills do not belong to that group of tool which is inventivelycoated with a hard material layer having Q_(I)≧1. From the result inTable 6 it may clearly be seen that for this kind of tools Q_(I)>1 doesnot lead to an improvement. Again, the I(200) to noise condition,measured with MS, was fulfilled for sample No. 42, for sample No. 43 theI(111) to noise condition was fulfilled. TABLE 6 Bias N₂- Arc CuttingVoltage Pressure current inter- Residual distance (−V) (mbar) (A) layerlayer x y Q₁ Stress (GPa) (m) Present 40 3.0 × 10⁻² 200 TiN(Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.6 0.4 5.0 2.2 17 m Invention 0.08 μm 42 Comparison 1501.0 × 10⁻² 200 TiN (Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.6 0.4 0.05 4.7 32 m 43 0.08 μm

EXAMPLE 7

[0057] Again, an apparatus and method as used for the samples of Example1 were used.

[0058] Solid carbide drills with a diameter of 11.8 mm were coated witha 4.5 μm MeX layer. There was provided a TiN interlayer between the MeXlayer and the tool body. Test conditions: Tool: Solid carbide drill,dia. 11.8 mm Workpiece: Cast iron GG25 Machining conditions: v_(c) = 110m/min f = 0.4 mm/rev. Blind hole 3 × diam. No coolant

[0059] The solid carbide drills were used until a maximum width of flankwear of 0.8 mm was obtained. The I(200) to noise condition was againfulfilled, measured with MS. TABLE 7 Bias N₂- Arc Cutting VoltagePressure current inter- Residual distance (−V) (mbar) (A) layer layer xy Q₁ Stress (GPa) (m) Present 40 3.0 × 10⁻² 200 TiN (Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.60.4 5.4 2.1 95 m Invention 0.1 μm 44 Comparison 150 1.0 × 10⁻² 200 TiN(Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.6 0.4 0.03 4.5 48.5 m 45 0.1 μm

EXAMPLE 8

[0060] Again, the apparatus and method as stated in Example 1 were used.

[0061] Cemented carbide inserts for turning with a shape in accordancewith CNGP432 were coated with a 4.8 μm MeX layer. There was provided aTiN interlayer with a thickness of 0.12 μm between the MeX layer and thetool body. The test conditions were: Tool: Carbide insert (CNGP432)Material: DIN 1.4306(X2CrNi 1911) Cutting parameters: v_(c) = 244 m/minf = 0.22 mm/rev. a_(p) = 1.5 mm with emulsion

[0062] The tool life was evaluated in minutes. The indicated value is anaverage of three measurements. Again, I(200)/noise condition, measuredwith MS, was fulfilled. TABLE 8 Bias N₂- Arc Cutting Voltage Pressurecurrent inter- Residual distance (−V) (mbar) (A) layer layer x y Q₁Stress (GPa) (m) Present 40 3.0 × 10⁻² 200 TiN (Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.6 0.45.8 1.9 18.1 min Invention 0.12 μm 46 Comparison 150 1.0 × 10⁻² 200 TiN(Ti_(x)Al_(y))N 0.6 0.4 0.04 4.9 5.5 min 47 0.12 μm

[0063] In FIG. 1 there is reown, with linear scaling a diagram ofnitrogen partial pressure versus bias voltage of the tool body asapplied for reactive cathodic arc evaporation as the reactive PVDdeposition method used to realise the Examples which were discussedabove.

[0064] All the process parameters of the cathodic arc evaporationprocess, namely

[0065] arc current;

[0066] process temperature;

[0067] deposition rate;

[0068] evaporated material;

[0069] strength and configuration of magnetic field adjacent the arcsource;

[0070] geometry and dimensions of the process chamber and of theworkpiece tool to be treated

[0071] were kept constant. The remaining process parameters, namelypartial pressure of the reactive gas—or total pressure—and bias voltageof the tool body to be coated as a workpiece and with respect to apredetermined electrical reference potential, as to the ground potentialof the chamber wall, were varied.

[0072] Thereby, titanium aluminum nitride was deposited. With respect toreactive gas partial pressure and bias voltage of the tool body,different working points were established and the resulting Q_(I) valuesat the deposited hard material layers were measured according to Ms.

[0073] It turned out that there exists in the diagram according to FIG.1 an area P, which extends in a first approximation linearly from atleast adjacent the origin of the diagram coordinates, wherein theresulting layer leads to very low XRD intensity values of I(200) andI(111). It is clear that for exactly determining the limits of P, a highnumber of measurements will have to be done. Therein, none of the I(200)and I(111) intensity values is as large as 20 times the average noiselevel, measured according to MS.

[0074] On one side of this area P and as shown in FIG. 1 Q_(I) is largerthan 1, in the other area with respect to P, Q_(I) is lower than 1. Inboth these areas at least one of the values I(200), I(111) is largerthan 20 times the average noise level, measured according to MS.

[0075] As shown with the arrows in FIG. 1, diminishing of the partialpressure of the reactive gas—or of the total pressure if it ispractically equal to the said partial pressure—and/or increasing of thebias voltage of the tool body being coated, leads to reduction of Q_(I).Thus, the inventive method for producing a tool which comprises a toolbody and a wear resistant layer system, which latter comprises at leastone hard material layer, comprises the steps of reactive PVD depositingthe at least one hard material layer in a vacuum chamber, therebypreselecting process parameter values for the PVD deposition processstep beside of either or both of the two process parameters, namely ofpartial pressure of the reactive gas and of bias voltage of the toolbody. It is one of these two parameters or both which are then adjustedfor realising the desired Q_(I) values, thus, and according to thepresent invention, bias voltage is reduced and/or partial reactive gaspressure is increased to get Q_(I) values, which are, as explainedabove, at least larger than 1, preferably at least larger than 2 or even5 and even better of 10. Beside the inventively exploited Q_(I) value,in this “left hand” area, with respect to P, I(200) is larger, mostlymuch larger than 20 times the average noise level of intensity, measuredaccording to MS.

[0076] In FIG. 2 a typical intensity versus angle 2θ diagram is shownfor the titanium aluminum nitride hard material layer deposited in theQ_(I)>1 region according to the present invention of FIG. 1, resultingin a Q_(I) value of 5.4. The average noise level N* is much less thanI(200)/20. Measurement is done according to MS.

[0077] In FIG. 3 a diagram in analogy of that in FIG. 2 is shown, butthe titanium aluminum nitride deposition being controlled by biasvoltage and nitrogen partial pressure to result in a Q_(I)<1. Theresulting Q_(I) value is 0.03. Here the I(111) value is larger than theaverage noise level of intensity, measured according to MS.

[0078] Please note that in FIG. 1 the respective Q_(I) values in therespective regions are noted at each working point measured (accordingto MS).

[0079] In FIG. 4 a diagram in analogy to that of the FIGS. 2 and 3 isshown for working point P₁ of FIG. 1. It may be seen that theintensities I(200) and I(111) are significantly reduced compared withthose in the area outside P. None of the values I(200) and I(111)reaches the value of 20 times the noise average level N*.

[0080] Thus, by simply adjusting at least one of the twoQ_(I)-controlling reactive PVD process parameters, namely of reactivegas partial pressure and of workpiece bias voltage, the inventivelyexploited Q_(I) value is controlled.

[0081] In FIG. 1 there is generically shown with ∂Q_(I)<0 the adjustingdirection for lowering Q_(I), and it is obvious that in oppositedirection of adjusting the two controlling process parameters, andincrease of Q_(I) is reached.

1. A tool with a tool body and a wear resistant layer system, said layersystem comprising at least one layer of MeX, wherein Me comprisestitanium and aluminum; X is at least one of nitrogen and of carbon andwherein said layer has a Q_(I)value Q_(I)≧1 and said tool body is of oneof the materials high speed steel (HSS) cemented carbide, and whereinsaid tool is not a solid carbide end mill and not a solid carbide ballnose mill whereby the value of I(200) is at least 20 times the intensityaverage noise value, both measured according to MS.
 2. The tool of claim1 being one of a cemented carbide insert, a cemented carbide drill and acemented carbide gear cutting tool, preferably a cemented carbide insertor a cemented carbide drill.
 3. The tool of claim 1 wherein there isvalid for said Q_(I): Q_(I)≧2, thereby preferably Q_(I)≧5, especiallypreferred Q_(I)>10.
 4. The tool of claim 1, wherein said MeX material isone of titanium aluminum nitride, titanium aluminum carbonitride,titanium aluminum boron nitride, thereby preferably one of titaniumaluminum nitride and titanium aluminum carbonitride.
 5. The tool ofclaim 1, wherein Me further comprises at least one further element outof the group consisting of boron, zirconium, hafnium, yttrium, silicon,tungsten, chromium, thereby preferably of at least one of yttrium andsilicon and boron.
 6. The tool of claim 5, wherein said further elementis contained in Me with a content i 0.05 at.%≦i≦60 at.%, taken Me as 100at.%.
 7. The tool of claim 1, further comprising a further layer oftitanium nitride between said at least one layer and said tool body andwherein said further layer has a thickness d, for which there is valid0.05 μm≦d≦5.0 μm.
 8. The tool of claim 7, wherein said layer system isformed by said at least one layer and said further layer.
 9. The tool ofclaim 1, wherein the stress within said at least one layer, δ, is 1GPa≦δ≦6 GPa, thereby preferably 1 GPa≦δ4 GPa, and even more preferred1.5 GPa≦δ≦2.5 GPa.
 10. The tool of claim 1, wherein the content x oftitanium in Me is: 70 at.%≧x≧40 at.%, preferably 65 at.%≧x≧55 at.%. 11.The tool of claim 1, wherein the content y of aluminum in said Me is: 30at.%≦y≦60 at.%, thereby preferably 35 at.%≦y≦45 at.%.
 12. The tool ofclaim 10, wherein rhe content y of aluminum in said Me is: 30 at.%≦y≦60at.%, thereby preferably 35 at.%≦y≦45 at.%.
 13. A method of producingq atool comprising a tool body and a wear resistant layer system, whichcomprises at least one hard material layer, comprising the steps ofreative PVD depositing said at least one layer in a vacuum chamber,selecting predetermined process parameter values for said PVD depositingbeside of at least one of the two parameters consisting of partialpressure of a reactive gas in said vacuum chamber and of bias voltage ofthe tool body with respect to a predetermined reference potential;adjusting at least one of said partial pressure and of said bias voltagefor realising said layer with a desired Q_(I) value and a value of atleast one of the I(200) and I(111) to be at least 20 times larger thanthe average intensity noise value both measured according to MS.
 14. Themethod of claim 13, further comprising the step of reducing said partialpressure for reducing said Q_(I) value and vice versa.
 15. The method ofclaim 13, comprising the step of increasing said bias voltage forreducing said Q_(I) value and vice versa.
 16. The method of claim 13,further comprising the step of reducing said pressure and of increasingsaid bias voltage for reducing said Q_(I) value and vice versa.
 17. Themethod of claim 13, further comprising the step of performing saidreactive PVD deposition by reactive cathodic arc evaporation.
 18. Themethod of claim 17, further comprising the step of magneticallycontrolling said arc evaporation.
 19. The method of claim 13, furthercomrprising the step of depositing on said tool body a MeX layer,wherein Me comprises titanium and aluminum and X is at least one ofnitrogen and of carbon and is introduced to said PVD depositing byreactive gas.
 20. The method of claim 13, wherein said tool body is ofone of the materials high speed steel (HSS) cemented carbide and whereinsaid tool is not a solid carbide end mill and not a solid carbide ballnose mill thereby selecting said Q_(I) value to be Q_(I)≧1 by adjustingat least one of said reactive pressure and of said bias voltage for saidreactive PVD depositing.
 20. The method of claim 19, thereby selectingsaid Q_(I) value to be Q_(I)≧2, preferably to be Q_(I)≧5.
 21. The methodof claim 20, thereby selecting said Q_(I) value to be Q_(I)≧10.